Subject-oriented programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:13, 22 March 2012

Revision as of 11:37, 24 March 2012

Line 1:

{{Cleanup|reason=I added the empty Examples section to the top when I don't really know where it properly belongs. I wish I could have just used <nowiki>{{Expand|reason=needs examples|date=March 2012}}</nowiki> instead, but the template has been semi-deleted.|date=March 2012}}

{{Programming paradigms}}

In [[computing]], '''Subject-Oriented Programming''' is an [[Object-oriented programming|object-oriented]] [[programming paradigm |software paradigm]] in which the state (fields) and behavior (methods) of objects are not seen as intrinsic to the objects themselves, but are provided by various [[Subject (programming)|subjective perceptions]] (“subjects”) of the objects. The term and concepts were first published in September 1993 in a conference paper<ref>William Harrison and Harold Ossher, Subject-Oriented Programming - A Critique of Pure Objects, Proceedings of 1993 Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, September 1993 </ref> which was later recognized as being one of the three most influential papers to be presented at the conference between 1986 and 1996.<ref>http://www.sigplan.org/award-oopsla.htm</ref>. As illustrated in that paper, an analogy is made with the contrast between the philosophical views of [[Plato]] and [[Immanuel Kant | Kant]] with respect to the characteristics of “real” objects, but applied to software ones. For example, while we may all perceive a tree as having a measurable height, weight, leaf-mass, etc., from the point-of view of a bird, a tree may also have measures of relative value for food or nesting purposes, or from the point-of-view of a tax-assessor, it may have a certain taxable value in a given year. Neither the bird’s nor the tax-assessor’s additional state information need be seen as intrinsic to the tree, but are added by the perceptions of the bird and tax-assessor, and from Kant’s analysis, the same may be true even of characteristics we think of as intrinsic.

Subject-oriented programming advocates the organization of the [[Class (computer science)|classes]] that describe [[Object (computer science)|objects]] into “subjects”, which may be composed to form larger subjects. At points of access to fields or [[Method (computer science)|methods]], several subjects’ contributions may be composed. These points were characterized as the [[join-point]]s<ref>Harold Ossher , Peri Tarr. Operation-Level Composition: A Case in (Join) Point, in ECOOP ’98 Workshop Reader, 406–409</ref> of the subjects. For example, if a tree is cut-down, the methods involved may need to join behavior in the bird and tax-assessor’s subjects with that of the tree’s own. It is therefore fundamentally a view of the compositional nature of software development, as opposed to the algorithmic (procedural) or representation-hiding (object) nature.

Line 11:

==Relationship to aspect-oriented programming==

The introduction of [[aspect-oriented programming]] in 1997,<ref>Kiczales, Gregor; John Lamping, Anurag Mendhekar, Chris Maeda, Cristina Lopes, Jean-Marc Loingtier, and John Irwin (1997). "Aspect-Oriented Programming". Proceedings of the European Conference on Object-Oriented Programming, vol.1241. pp. 220–242.</ref>, raised questions about its relationship to subject-oriented programming, and about the difference between subjects and aspects. These questions were unanswered for some time, but were addressed in the patent on Aspect-oriented programming filed in 1999<ref>Kiczales; Gregor J.; Lamping; John O.; Lopes; Cristina V.; Hugunin; James J.; Hilsdale; Erik A.; Boyapati; Chandrasekhar, Aspect Oriented Programming, United States Patent 6,467,086, October 15, 2002</ref> in which two points emerge as characteristic differences from earlier art:

* the aspect program comprises both a) a cross-cut that comprises a point in the execution where cross-cutting behavior is to be included; and b) a cross-cut action comprising a piece of implementation associated with the cross-cut, the piece of implementation comprising computer readable program code that implements the cross-cutting behavior.

* the aspect transparently forces the cross-cutting behavior on object classes and other software entities

In the subject-oriented view, the cross-cut may be placed separately from the aspect (subject) and the behavior is not forced by the aspect, but by governed by rules of composition. Hindsight<ref>William Harrison. De-constructing and Re-constructing Aspect-Orientation, Seventh Annual Workshop on Foundations of Aspect Languages, Brussels, Belgium, 1 April, 2008, edited by Gary T. Leavens , ACM Digital Library, 2008, pp. 43-50</ref> makes it also possible to distinguish aspect-oriented programming by its introduction and exploitation of the concept of a query-like [[pointcut]] to externally impose the join-points used by aspects in general ways.

In the presentation of subject-oriented programming, the join-points were deliberately restricted to field access and method call on the grounds that those were the points at which well-designed frameworks were designed to admit functional extension. The use of externally imposed pointcuts is an important linguistic capability, but remains one of the most controversial features of aspect-oriented programming.<ref>Friedrich Steimann. The paradoxical success of aspect-oriented programming, Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programming systems, languages, and applications, Portland, Oregon, USA , 2006, pp. 481 - 497</ref>.

==Relationship to aspect-oriented software development==

By the turn of the millennium, it was clear that a number of research groups were pursuing different technologies that employed the composition or attachment of separately-packaged state and function to form objects.<ref>Communications of the ACM, Vol. 44, No. 10, October 1994, pp. 28-95</ref>. To distinguish the common field of interest from Aspect-Oriented Programming with its particular patent definitions and to emphasize that the compositional technology deals with more than just the coding phase of software development, these technologies were organized together under the term [[Aspect-Oriented Software Development]],<ref>http://aosd.net/</ref>, and an organization and series on international conferences begun on the subject. Like aspect-oriented programming, subject-oriented programming, composition filters, [[Feature Oriented Programming|feature oriented programming]] and adaptive methods are considered to be aspect-oriented software development approaches.

==Multi-dimensional separation of concerns, Hyper/J, and the Concern Manipulation Environment==

The original formulation of subject-oriented programming deliberately envisioned it as a packaging technology – allowing the space of functions and data types to be extended in either dimension. The first implementations had been for C++,<ref>Harold Ossher, Matthew Kaplan, William Harrison, Alexander Katz and Vincent Kruskal, Subject-Oriented Composition Rules, Proceedings of 1995 Conference on Object-Oriented Programming Systems, Languages, and Applications, October 1995 </ref>, and Smalltalk.<ref>Hafedh Mili, William Harrison, Harold Ossher, Supporting Subject-Oriented Programming in Smalltalk, Proceedings of TOOLS USA 96, August 1996</ref>. These implementations exploited the concepts of software labels and composition rules to describe the joining of subjects.

To address the concern that a better foundation should be provided for the analysis and composition of software not just in terms of its packaging but in terms of the various concerns these packages addressed, an explicit organization of the material was developed in terms of a multi-dimensional “matrix” in which concerns are related to the software units that implement them. This organization is called '''Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns''', and the paper describing it<ref>Harold Ossher, Peri Tarr, William Harrison, Stanley Sutton, N Degrees of Separation: Multi-Dimensional Separation of Concerns, Proceedings of 1999 International Conference on Software Engineering, May 1999 </ref> has been recognized as the most influential paper of the ICSE 1999 Conference<ref>http://www.sigsoft.org/awards/mostInfPapAwd.htm </ref>

This new concept was implemented for composing [[Java (programming language)|Java]] software, using the name '''Hyper/J''' for the tool.<ref>Harold Ossher, Peri Tarr. Hyper/J: Multi-dimensional separation of concerns for Java, Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Software Engineering, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2001, Pages: 821 - 822 </ref>.

Composition and the concept of subject can be applied to software artifacts that have no executable semantics, like requirement specifications or documentation. A research vehicle for [[Eclipse (software)|Eclipse]], called the '''Concern Manipulation Environment''' (CME), has been described<ref>William Chung, William Harrison, Vincent Kruskal, Harold Ossher, Stanley M. Sutton, Jr., Peri Tarr, Matthew Chapman, Andrew Clement, Helen Hawkins, Sian January. The concern manipulation environment, Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering table of contents, St. Louis, MO, USA, 2005</ref> in which tools for query, analysis, modelling,<ref>William Harrison, Harold Ossher, Stanley Sutton, Peri Tarr. Concern modeling in the concern manipulation environment, Proceedings of the 2005 workshop on Modeling and analysis of concerns in software, St. Louis, Missouri, 2005</ref>, and composition are applied to artifacts in any language or representation, through the use of appropriate plug-in adapters to manipulate the representation.

A successor to the Hyper/J composition engine<ref>William Harrison, Harold Ossher, Peri Tarr. General Composition of Software Artifacts, Proceedings of Software Composition Workshop 2006, March 2006, Springer-Verlag, LNCS 4089, pages 194-210</ref> was developed as part of CME which uses a general approach for the several elements of a composition engine:

Line 39:

* and a priority ordering specification to resolve conflicts among conflicting rules.

Both Hyper/J and CME are available, from alphaWorks<ref>http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/hyperj</ref> or sourceforge,<ref>http://sourceforge.net/projects/cme/</ref>, respectively, but neither is actively supported.

==See also==